My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8158
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8158
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 10:05:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8158
Author
Osmundson, D. B.
Title
Longitudinal Variation in Fish Community Structure and Water Temperature in the Upper Colorado River; Final Report.
USFW Year
1999.
USFW - Doc Type
Grand Junction, Colorado.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
I used lengths and weights of all captured individuals from both seasons to develop one <br />length-weight relationship for each species that could then be used as a standard to which <br />relative condition could be compared when relative condition data were partitioned by strata, <br />season, or life-history phase. Slope and intercept coefficients were derived by regressing log- <br />transformed mass as a function of length. Relative condition of each individual fish was then <br />calculated. A T-test was used to test for differences between mature and immature fish of <br />each species (within seasons), and ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test <br />to compare condition among seasons and among strata within seasons. To increase sample <br />sizes for comparisons and look for large-scale longitudinal patterns, data were combined from <br />adjacent strata in similar sections of the river. The resulting five groupings were strata 1-3, 4- <br />6, 7-9, 10-11, and 12 (the single Gunnison River stratum). <br />Food Habits <br />Stomach samples from the three major native species (bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker <br />and roundtail chub) were collected from each stratum during each season. A total of 10 fish <br />of each type were picked at random from each stratum; three from each of two study reaches <br />and four from the third reach. Stomach contents of roundtail chub were removed using a <br />Seaburg stomach sampler (Seaburg 1957) as modified by Gengerke et al. (1973). Back-flush <br />tubes of various diameters, based on the size of the fish, were used. Chubs were then released <br />alive. Roundtail chubs containing no food were replaced with individuals that yielded at least <br />some stomach contents. For suckers, individuals were sacrificed and entire digestive tracts <br />were removed. No field inspection was made to determine emptiness. Stomach contents of <br />Colorado pikeminnow captured during a concurrent study in 1994 (see Osmundson et al. <br />1998) were also examined using a Seaburg stomach sampler. Empty stomachs were recorded <br />in the field. Stomach contents were collected from Colorado pikeminnow opportunistically <br />from throughout the river without regard to quotas or minimum numbers per stratum. <br />All gastrointestinal samples were preserved in ethanol and sent to the Larval Fish Laboratory <br />(Colorado State University) for analysis. In the lab, extraneous tissue was dissected away <br />from each sucker gut and percent fullness of the gut was visually assessed. Guts that <br />appeared to be 100% full were used as a standard to estimate percent fullness of other guts. <br />To reduce laboratory time, only the anterior 1/3 of each gut was used, and sub-samples of <br />contents were analyzed. Food items were identified to lowest practical taxon, and visual <br />estimates were made of percentage of total volume of stomach contents contributed by each <br />taxon. The `aggregate percent method' (Swanson et al. 1974) was used to calculate an <br />overall percent volume for each food item for those fish containing food. Due to limited <br />numbers of chub and sucker stomach samples per stratum per sampling period, we combined <br />data from adjacent strata in similar sections of the river; using the same stratum groupings <br />described above for the body condition analysis. To do so, we first calculated the mean for <br />each stratum and then calculated the mean of these stratum means for each stratum group. <br />7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.